Despite landing on the PlayStation 3 back in late November, Skullgirls' Slightly Different Edition update has yet to make its way to Microsoft's console. The delay is due to the file size of the update itself, according to XBLA Fan's translation of a tweet from the official Japanese Skullgirls account.

While Microsoft limits XBLA updates to just four megs, the fighter's Slightly Different Edition patch weighs in at 590 megabytes. Being granted an exception to the rule is apparently possible, though subsequently time consuming. No announcements have been made regarding an expected completion date for the whole deal.

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated.

Originally Posted by matics

I was hoping this was the first reply.

Am I the only one still hoping Skullgirls comes to Steam?

Right now it's looking likely that Skullgirls will make it to PC based on what Ravid has been saying the past few weeks, so I think it's OK to keep your hopes up.

It's not a great indicator of anything, but Skullgirls did become available for preorder on Gamersgate again. (thanks Tizoc)

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

They charge out the ass for the cert process on every patch, you'd think they could roll whatever bandwidth charges they incur somewhere in that $40k

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated.

Even Sony has mostly dropped bandwidth charges. From a dev interview last summer, between SCEA and SCEE, only one of them has a bandwidth fee any more, and it's only for downloads larger than 2 GB.

Rules and regulations. I don't know exactly how, but I would bet this policy is in place for financial reasons. Why else would a company make a conscious decision to not improve a game that is available on its system?

Nope.
This process is in place because the 360 has to support 20Go SKUs, and more importantly old SKUs without any HDD (I think the memory card is something like 4Go?).
So, what they did was reserve a given buffer space on the drive where to store the updates, and cycle through them once it maxes out -- the new one erasing the oldest one. That's why you always have an update prompt when playing a game you haven't played for ages: your old update got erased, and you have to download it again.
With such a system in place, it's easy to see why they would want a size limit on those patches.

This shouldn't be a problem for the "720", since all SKUs will have an HDD. Just like the PS3 or the Wii U do.

Quite frankly I appreciate the limit. I've turned PS3 games on to see I've got to download over 500mb, which would take about an hour on my shit connection. I then turn it off to play something else. Most games on the Xbox patch in about a minute, and it doesn't eat into my gaming time.

I understand that some games differ from the norm such as Skullgirls, but in general, I think that the patch size limit on Xbox is a good thing.

Microsoft really needs to fix this. Why the hell does it cost so much as well?

Nope, at least not XBLA games, not sure about retail games. Pretty sure Bioshock had free DLC. I recall Bastion having free DLC on PC and the DLC on X360 cost 80 MSP because they couldn't have it be free. There's also a fee for making DLC (and patches too for that matter).

Since everything is downloaded from XBL on X360, MS takes a fee. That fee definitely covers more than just the servers though, like earnings.

IIRC bandwidth is a factor; for example, Sony charges the publisher by the bandwidth spent by consumers downloading these additions. MS has a different system that (I think) is in part designed to discourage putting bloat on their network. It's just really outdated

It's a fair argument - the costs for bandwidth that Microsoft has to deal with for downloads. Maybe they could do something like, say, charge consumers a fee for online to help offset those costs.

Nope. Portal 2 is the exception for the simple reason it's also on the PS3.

When pressed about whether Microsoft effectively enforced the pricing, Faliszek added: "Well, they helped us get the first one out for free. We had the one DLC out for free. And I think... they have to look and say, wow, we're kind of being unfair to everybody else if these guys can do that

that's interesting.

I can't help but feel valve like the additional income but know they can blame microsoft for any backlash. after all, why price the dlc for the odd price of 560msp when they could price it for 200msp or 400msp?

it should be noted there's a ton of free dlc on the store as well as a number of free games, so I'm not sure that's even valid any more. after all, that is from nearly 4 years ago.

Nope, at least not XBLA games, not sure about retail games. Pretty sure Bioshock had free DLC. I recall Bastion having free DLC on PC and the DLC on X360 cost 80 MSP because they couldn't have it be free. There's also a fee for making DLC (and patches too for that matter).

Since everything is downloaded from XBL on X360, MS takes a fee. That fee definitely covers more than just the servers though, like earnings.

The limit isn't 4MB, hasn't been for almost two years. Regardless of the actual limit, there are ways around it.

Ask Criterion, Dice and many others...

1.) It's a contextual limit.

2.) I agree, there is a long-established history of games from AAA publishers getting to pick and choose which platform rules they don't have to follow. Skullgirls doesn't fall in that category, though.

I can't help but feel valve like the additional income but know they can blame microsoft for any backlash. after all, why price the dlc for the odd price of 560msp when they could price it for 200msp or 400msp?

I think that's the point -- 560 MSP was as low as Microsoft would go.

it should be noted there's a ton of free dlc on the store as well as a number of free games, so I'm not sure that's even valid any more. after all, that is from nearly 4 years ago.

I edited my post just moments ago; I thought he was asking about Valve, not the X360 in general.

Quite frankly I appreciate the limit. I've turned PS3 games on to see I've got to download over 500mb, which would take about an hour on my shit connection. I then turn it off to play something else. Most games on the Xbox patch in about a minute, and it doesn't eat into my gaming time.

I understand that some games differ from the norm such as Skullgirls, but in general, I think that the patch size limit on Xbox is a good thing.

I tend to agree. I hope they keep a limit next gen but both increase that limit to something like 20mb and drop the fee or at least reconsider the cost. have a scaling system or something.

first patch is free, second patch costs a few hundred and then ramp up the cost to say a couple of thousand and if a fourth patch is required, charge 10k or something. 40k is excessive.

I think that's the point -- that 560 MSP was as low as Microsoft would go.

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

Originally Posted by bigtroyjon

40K is an internet myth. They charge 10K.

that's a lot more reasonable. do you know if it's a scaling system or is that the fee for all patches after the first one?

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

I'd say the "economy of value" comment suggests just that, but it's difficult to be certain as there's no further clarification.

I'm not so sure, there's nothing in the article that suggests they enforced a price point but rather insisted that they charge for the dlc. the pricing is seemingly left up to the the publisher / developer, otherwise all dlc would have a set minimum limit and that's not the case.

Not all DLC is the same. I think Microsoft sets the minimum depending on the type of content provided.

The limit isn't 4MB, hasn't been for almost two years. Regardless of the actual limit, there are ways around it.

Ask Criterion, Dice and many others...

Off the top of my head, Bioshock, RDR and Mass Effect 3 had free, sizable DLC too. Then again, these were AAA multiplats so the same rules might not have applied. Burnout is interesting in that it was DLC acting as massive title updates.